Introduction
The first order of business is to establish my credentials. I have no recollection of anyone ever remarking on some special abilities or talents that I possessed. Had this occurred, I am pretty sure that such an occasion would not be lost to memory. It is, after all, not the kind of thing a person is likely to forget. Since by definition a mediocrity is one devoid of any socially perceived special talents or abilities, my credentials are established beyond serious dispute. Moreover, beyond these credentials, I have none of consequence.
But here’s the problem, mediocrity or not, I have been the kind of person who pays close attention to things, most particularly the dynamics at play in human social arrangements. And after nearly eighty years of pondering the issue of social arrangements, I have been struck by the amount of distortion in my idea of simple fairness that prevails. It has been said that “life is unfair” and that is true. There are natural events that impact the human condition over which we currently have little or no control – earthquakes, genetic diseases and the like. So unfairness that arises from natural events will persist. But if fairness is an important consideration in the human condition, should we be compounding the unfairness produced by nature through the implementation of unfair social arrangements? All human social arrangements and institutions are premised on some justifying explanation. Another name for “explanation” as used here is “ideology”. An ideology being a body of thought that claims an understanding of the fundamental nature of the human condition. Using that understanding as a premise, a system is then rationalized which maintains that if its principles are followed the best possible outcome is achieved. But what is meant by best possible outcome? Does it apply to an individual in a society, to the success of a particular society, or to the human species cumulatively? It seems axiomatic that the litmus test has to be a best outcome for the success and survivability of the human species. After all, what can be the value of the success of an individual or a particular society if it lowers the probability of the survival of the human species?
Under the circumstances, it seemed a good idea to cast about for a way to test social rules for their effectiveness in increasing the probability of the survival of the human species. In addition, it would be necessary to understand why unfair social rules could succeed, and to develop a strategy to avoid being hoodwinked by them. The conventional ideologies (political, religious, cultural, economic etc.) known to me didn’t adequately address either of the issues. No surprise, since those in control of social arrangements were the architects of the deceptions on the fairness issue, and it is the mediocrities at whom those deceptions are directed. The whole point of being a victimizer is to have victims. So it seemed apparent that for such an understanding to be developed, it would have to be worked out by a mediocrity. Since I had the credentials, I reckoned I might as well undertake the necessary analysis.
From my viewpoint, I succeeded; what I actually see in the social landscape becomes comprehensible once it is understood in accordance with the line of reasoning which follows. However, I did not come up with another prescription on how society should be organized. All that I have done is to suggest how to obtain an objectified framework to judge the reasonableness of ideological prescriptions for social issues. I believe that if each individual uses this framework as the basis for determining which social rules they will conform to and which they will work to subvert, the best society will evolve that is achievable.
- Home
- Introduction
- Part 1
- Truth
- Insights
- The Human Condition
- Education
- Human Decency
- Enlightenment
- Part 2
- Culture Demystified
- The Elite
- Mediocrities
- Self-regard
- Self and Society
- Part 3
- Morals, Ethics, and Virtue
- The Concept of Evil is a Bad Idea
- Religion
- Patriotism
- Freedom
- Market Capitalism
- Wealth Distribution